[FRIAM] Warring Darwinians for Glen, Steve

[Eric Charles]

Glen said: "Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it would be that
we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind" moves around,
sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread very thin. And
that dynamism would be critical."

So, there are a few varieties of that right now, that are trying to get
along well together. Emobidied Cognition, Enactivism, Ecological Psychlogy,
Extended Cognition, etc. As a starting point for that work, especially for
the more mathematically inclined, I recommend "Radical Embodied Cognitive
Science" by Tony Chemero
<http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-reading-group-chemero-2009-radical.html>,
for the more philosophically inclined, I recommend "Radicalizing
Enactivism" by Dan Hutto
<https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/radicalizing-enactivism>, and for the more
general thinker interested in an overview of cool ideas I recommend "Beyond
the Brain" by Louise Barrett
<http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/01/beyond-brain-review-out.html>
.


-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist
American University - Adjunct Instructor
<echarles at american.edu>


On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 4:46 PM uǝlƃ ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what school I'm in. But neither of those positions seems
> right to me. I tend to believe in (quasi)cycles and flows. E.g. when I'm
> dreaming, my mind is inside me. When I'm engrossed in some activity, my
> mind is spread over both inside and outside ... as if the skin between me
> and the world is gone. Were I to try to formulate the school I'm in, it
> would be that we are a dynamic system and the locus that we call "mind"
> moves around, sometimes more or less in one place/time, sometimes spread
> very thin. And that dynamism would be critical.
>
> To boot, I would suggest that anyone *without* such dynamism would look
> like a Philosophical Zombie to me.
>
> On 5/5/20 1:40 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> > Well, if epigenesis,  emergence, etc., has taught us anything it is that
> what goes on inside the organism is not reliably modeled by what the
> organism does.  What I expect FRIAM is trying to digest here is which
> "mind" is a model of.  Some hold that mind is "in" the organism; others
> that mind is "of" the organism.  Eric and I are in that latter school, and
> I think you are, too, but I shouldn't presume.   If you are, then I expect
> you will join me in believing that the outards and the innards of an
> organism ate mostly different realms of discourse with some contingent but
> few necessary connections between them.
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ...
> .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200505/ae87addc/attachment.html>